After an outpouring of public sentiment in recent months, culminating over the weekend with political drama, the Kauai County Council’s action to affirm a new law regulating pesticides and genetically modified crops underscores the need for more decisive action by the state than has been mustered to date.

Bill 2491 will become Kauai law next August after its Council cobbled enough votes in the 11th hour, 5-2, to override Mayor Bernardo Carvalho Jr.’s veto. Under it:

» Large agribusinesses must disclose the type, amount and locations of pesticides they spray on their fields, and the growth of genetically modified crops.

» Buffer zones are imposed, prohibiting the growth of genetically modified crops near schools, dwellings, medical facilities, public roads and waterways. 

» Companies are required to provide annual reports of genetically modified crops grown on their fields to the county Office of Economic Development and state Department of Agriculture.

The state must recognize that what’s happened on Kauai — citizens compelling county officials to take action — are fanning the flames for a cogent statewide policy. The Kauai Agricultural Good Neighbor Program, a voluntary pesticide-use reporting program to begin Dec. 1, is a good start, but only a start — it needs to launch with the expectation that “voluntary” will soon not be enough.

The program under the Department of Agriculture’s Pesticides Branch, which has elements similar to Bill 2491, will need funding for more agricultural inspectors on Kauai. It aims to work with Syngenta Hawaii, Dupont Pioneer, BASF Corp., Dow AgroSciences and Kauai Coffee — the five firms affected by the bill — to create voluntary guidelines for pesticide-use disclosure and no-spray buffer zones around schools and hospitals.

But kicked into action by Kauai’s Council, the state must now assume a leadership role and work with Kauai and agribusinesses toward better policies on the related, yet distinctly separate issues, of restricted pesticides and GMO crops. 

Threats about legal action have been raised repeatedly and loudly. In fact, an attorney for Syngenta already vowed over the weekend: “There will definitely be a lawsuit.” And Carvalho, in explaining his veto, had said he agreed with the intent of Bill 2491 but worried about the measure being “legally flawed” in possibly pre-empting state and federal jurisdiction. 

But a group of environmental attorneys countered, saying: “No thoughtful, experienced attorney will offer blanket assurances about how any lawsuit will be decided, and the bill presents some cutting-edge legal issues. But the State expressly granted the County the authority to protect the health, life, and property of its people from just these kinds of threats. … We believe that Bill 2491 is sound, and the mere threat of a lawsuit by industry interests should not prevent the Council from taking action they believe is important to their community.”

Indeed, there is no good public purpose for any legal action at this crucial juncture. Simply, it would be wasteful: in monetary cost; in time better spent; in squandered goodwill that will be difficult, if not impossible, to recover.

Carvalho struck the right note when he told the Kauai Council Saturday: “I am already working to continue discussions with the state on other issues relative to the pesticide law and to strengthen the voluntary program to include memorandums of agreement that will hold all parties accountable.”

The biotech companies have voiced a willingness, even eagerness, to be good neighbors and to allay community fears. Now is their golden opportunity to step up to the accountability plate. To all parties and stakeholders: Take a deep breath and step away from the legal threats and obstacle-hurling. Keep in sight the goals of community health and safety, and transparency. Recognize there are reasonable ways to communicate and to ease valid concerns, concerns that have been fostered by lack of disclosure and information.